00:00:46 Florian has joined #css 00:03:02 jcraig has joined #css 00:13:12 zcorpan has joined #css 00:51:24 jcraig has joined #css 00:54:08 Florian has joined #css 01:08:26 stryx` has joined #css 02:14:17 zcorpan has joined #css 02:51:32 tantek has joined #css 02:54:56 jcraig has joined #css 03:15:02 zcorpan has joined #css 03:17:52 jcraig has joined #css 03:37:17 jcraig has joined #css 03:38:33 jcraig has joined #css 03:43:57 tantek has joined #css 03:45:46 jcraig_ has joined #css 04:03:02 jcraig has joined #css 04:16:49 tantek has joined #css 04:24:45 Florian has joined #css 04:24:51 jcraig has joined #css 04:35:11 Florian has joined #css 05:15:56 zcorpan has joined #css 05:42:01 jcraig has joined #css 06:36:51 skk has joined #css 07:16:52 zcorpan has joined #css 08:21:56 liam has joined #css 08:24:55 lajava has joined #css 08:38:32 zcorpan has joined #css 09:13:30 Ms2ger has joined #css 09:45:49 svillar has joined #css 10:20:27 svillar_ has joined #css 10:52:44 antonp has joined #css 11:12:45 antonp has joined #css 11:16:28 Florian has joined #css 11:43:13 zcorpan has joined #css 11:43:33 zcorpan has joined #css 12:15:21 Florian has joined #css 12:37:57 lajava has joined #css 12:50:41 dauwhe has joined #css 12:51:03 zcorpan has joined #css 13:12:43 Karen has joined #css 13:17:37 Florian has joined #css 13:26:29 Florian has joined #css 14:21:27 zcorpan has joined #css 14:35:32 jcraig has joined #css 15:05:38 liam has joined #css 15:09:01 Florian has joined #css 15:15:29 plh has joined #css 15:34:25 skk has joined #css 16:39:01 tobie has joined #css 16:39:33 plinss: any idea why the following returns 400? https://api.csswg.org/bikeshed/?force=1&url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tobie/sensors/fd4501a5c2bb7fb727fc2faff7f2c14f14227b74/index.bs 16:41:17 Are the minutes from Seattle going to be on www-style at some point soon...? 16:45:04 tobie: because bikeshed is giving a fatal error and no html output for that url 16:45:20 remove the force=1 or add output=err to see the error output 16:45:25 plinss: doesn't force=1 fix that? 16:45:41 can’t fix bikeshed giving no output 16:46:05 it only makes the server return the html output when non-fatal errors are present 16:47:58 glazou has joined #css 16:48:03 plinss: bikeshed -f spec index.bs WFM here 16:48:49 jensimmons has joined #css 16:48:56 interestingly, bikeshed spec -f index.bs doesn't 16:49:03 tobie: are you using an older version? the server is current and complaining about a missing ‘Level’ metadata entry 16:49:23 yes, here too. 16:49:37 Are you sure you're getting the order of the -f arg right 16:49:45 order seems meaningful here. 16:49:55 (somehow) 16:50:59 plinss: I get the same "missing ‘Level’ metadata" issue when I run this without "-f" and have been using -f all along to fix it. 16:51:35 plinss: there's some issue with pushing levels to /tr for the sensor spec which I'm not sure how to fix atm. 16:56:20 Rossen_ has joined #css 16:57:07 dbaron, yes, my fault 16:57:09 dael has joined #css 16:57:23 tobie: actually looking at the code I remember now that the force arg to the web api predated bikeshed’s force option, and it only forces html output instead of error output, but doesn’t pass the force flag to bikeshed 16:58:30 tantek has joined #css 16:58:32 tobie: I can add that easily enough, maybe later today (have a doctors appt shortly) 16:58:41 Guest87 has joined #css 16:58:49 Rossen_ has changed the topic to: Agenda for Feb 8, conf call https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Feb/0043.html 16:59:11 trackbot, start meeting 16:59:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:59:14 Zakim has joined #css 16:59:15 Zakim, this will be Style_CSS FP 16:59:15 ok, trackbot 16:59:16 Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference 16:59:16 Date: 08 February 2017 16:59:16 present+ 16:59:17 plinss: amazing! Thanks 16:59:30 present+ 16:59:37 present+ dael 16:59:43 ScribeNick: Dael 16:59:47 Florian has joined #css 17:00:06 fantasai, do you want me to hold off the css-align topics then? 17:00:06 ChrisL has joined #css 17:00:14 present+ dauwhe 17:00:14 BogdanBrinza has joined #css 17:00:28 present+ 17:00:28 Rossen_: If you have other stuff to discuss, sure. 17:00:43 present+ 17:00:44 Rossen_: If you think they're sufficiently self-explanatory, no problem to discuss 17:00:47 fantasai, plenty of things to discuss : 17:00:49 I just won't be able to present :) 17:00:53 present+ 17:01:16 antenna has joined #css 17:01:21 present+ antonp 17:01:27 present+ 17:01:29 bradk has joined #css 17:01:48 Rossen_: Is Florian on? 17:01:53 smfr has joined #css 17:02:05 present+ Florian 17:02:31 present+ BogdanBrinza 17:02:41 present+ ChrisL 17:02:44 present+ 17:02:50 present+ 17:02:55 SteveZ has joined #css 17:02:59 Present+ 17:03:04 present+ 17:03:20 fremy has joined #css 17:04:21 Rossen_: Hello everyone! 17:04:31 Rossen_: Are there any additional agenda items? 17:04:42 Rossen, Grid issues posted to www-style 17:04:49 Rossen: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Feb/0001.html 17:05:08 Topic: Expanding our help for SVG 17:05:18 +1 17:05:30 https://www.w3.org/Style/2016/css-2016+svg.html 17:05:41 https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FStyle%2F2016%2Fcss-2016.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FStyle%2F2016%2Fcss-2016%2Bsvg.html 17:06:05 Rossen_: This was the result of conversations starting in TPAC where it became clear the SVGWG was slowing down. Since then there have been efforts to keep the WG going, but it's pretty much dissimated itself. 17:06:24 Rossen_: There's only a few impl members and invited experts left. THe impl experts are also part of CSS. 17:06:31 alex_antennahouse has joined #css 17:06:47 present+ 17:07:09 Rossen_: After discussion with w3c, plh, and contacts astearns and I were in those discussions. The most favored path from w3m and plh is to capture the svg2.0 landing work under the csswg and drive that to completion 17:07:23 Rossen_: That entires us to do this. The svg2.0 was declared final. 17:07:37 q+ 17:07:39 Rossen_: The parts that are unstable were moved to different modules. 17:07:45 Rossen_: Those modules will move to incubation 17:08:21 Rossen_: The work that happens to fall under our charter will be the svg2.0 core spec, the svg a11y module (which is stable) as well as svg integration spec which was something we agreed ot take over in Seattle F2F 17:08:31 oh right, need to add the SVG Integration deliverable 17:09:09 Rossen_: Proceedurally the way we will drive this so we're not taking time away from WG as much as possible we will have BogdanBrinza from MS join the CSS WG and help us facilitate a track of paralel work on SVG. Similar how we handled graphics and text seperation in Seattle 17:09:16 I'd like "parts that are unstable" to be clarified further, or rather, if it's not prototyped (as of today) or at least partially already implemented in a browser (i.e. at least shipped behind a flag), it is considered "unstable" 17:09:33 Rossen_: During the graphics discussion disucssing transforms we had issues we could have resolved if we could have said that it would work for SVG 17:09:34 existing graphics and layout separation in f2f should perhaps be mentioned in the charter too 17:09:44 q? 17:10:01 Rossen_: I am looking forward to this. I know there's a number of you on the queue. I'd be happy to take questions, but I want to time box this for 5 mintes because we have a large agenda. 17:10:05 present+ 17:10:26 Rossen_: I also want to point you to the links from ChrisL above. He also agreed to change the charter text. Look at the div that captures the deliverable expansion. 17:10:28 q? 17:10:39 present+ myles 17:10:48 Florian: You said the unstable parts are split off. When was that? A few days or longer ago? 17:11:33 q+ 17:11:37 ack Florian 17:11:38 Rossen_: This was part of what BogdanBrinza and I did with SVG for 18 months. TPAC 2014 is when we rejoined and started to seperate unstable pieces into own modules. THat was done. I can point you back to our tracking system for that and the decision matrix. 17:11:55 q? 17:11:58 Florian: Based on that, for what's left is that only what was in svg1.1 with refined wording, or new features? 17:12:16 ChrisL: New features, yes. primarily html client integration clarity. It has aria but we think that can be tested. 17:12:19 q+ 17:12:34 Florian: +1 17:12:54 Florian: +1 17:12:57 Florian: UNless there was a recent change, I'm suspicious it's stable given it doesn't have a test suite. THis is a massive spec. From a distince I feel taking this to rec would be as much work as 2.1 to rec. This isn't a small piece of work. 17:13:05 I am also suspicious of the claim it's stable 17:13:11 Florian: Even if the crazy parts are removed wha't sleft is enormous. I'm worried. 17:13:23 present+ 17:13:47 Florian: Second point is this discussion of merging svg hasn't happened in the AC forum. 17:14:00 (Sorry for the late notice, but I'm finally back in cell phone reception. If fantasai hasn't already said so, regrets today, I'm on work off site.) 17:14:11 ChrisL: This is normal. A draft goes to WG first, then we send notice to AC, then when charter is ready we send it to them for review. This is the normal process. 17:14:13 +1 on what Chris said 17:14:43 Florian: We were ongoing review of SVG charter that didn't say it was dead. That charter wasn't accepted or rejected. WE were in the middle of discussion 17:14:43 Chris +1 makes sense for the WG to review / consider an additional draft first, then go to AC to ask permission to expand charter if we choose to pursue that path 17:14:56 ChrisL: I think plh sent something out saying charter review has failed. Did that not happen? 17:15:00 ??: it did 17:15:04 Florian: Okay. Maybe it did. 17:15:07 q? 17:15:09 q? 17:15:13 ack glazou 17:15:15 ack glazou 17:15:50 glazou: One comment. ChrisL called me a few days ago to discuss this. I think having svg inside the WG will rely on few people for lots of work. I think if we don't have these important people we can't do SVG and we should say that. 17:16:06 q? 17:16:12 glazou: Otherwise soem ACs will require deliverables to be delivered. If we don't have the right people, the WG will fail. 17:16:43 BogdanBrinza: svg being too big concern- we're fully commited to it 17:16:51 q+ 17:16:56 BogdanBrinza: glazou point, we do have the right expertese and motivation. 17:17:12 svillar__ has joined #css 17:17:24 glazou: Yo have a full commitment on 8 Feb 2017. We know things and companies change strategy. It is good now. I'm not sure it's good a year from now. 17:17:33 glazou: That's why I wanted to say without the right people we can't commit. 17:18:26 Rossen_: Every time we've made progress on SVG it's when a core set of us who sat around a table. That was shans TabAtkins - both CSS dino was involved. Most things changed and moved was those overlap meetings. 17:18:44 q+ to mention CSS Ally taskforce for SVG ARIA 17:18:44 Rossen_: IN terms of making process I believe we have the core expertese and right set of people in the WG. 17:19:03 q? 17:19:04 Rossen_: With the commitment of BogdanBrinza and whoever else commits I'm hopefuly it will happen quickly. 17:19:20 ack Florian 17:19:25 ack BogdanBrinza 17:19:42 Florian: If we have the motivated set of people, why is that not it's own WG? Why is the merge needed? THe same people can be in multi WG. 17:19:48 q+ 17:20:25 The W3C Process does not say that you MUST deliver, only that you SHOULD deliver or declare that no further progress is possible and publish a Note to that effect. 17:20:26 Rossen_: I'm not sure if plh is on the phone. If this is supposed to be its own groups isn't something we can decide. We were asked to help and I'm relaying it. 17:20:43 q? 17:20:51 BogdanBrinza: I think the proposal of the plan and timelines are something we want to have. I want to approach this the way we do software development. 17:20:52 q- 17:21:09 ack ChrisL 17:21:09 ChrisL, you wanted to mention CSS Ally taskforce for SVG ARIA 17:21:25 fantasai: are you on the call? 17:21:33 ChrisL: I had two thigns to say. We have the a11y TF which I think has Rick on it which was part of SVG. During the previous review of SVG WG charter which failed there was a comment from Mozilla that maybe this should be in the CSSWG 17:21:36 Thanks ChrisL for passing along the Mozilla comment 17:21:37 fantasai: Why did charter fail? 17:22:09 ChrisL: No impl stepped up to join. I don't have it in front of me. It was below critical mass. There needs to be at least 24 responses. 17:22:27 Florian: The other aspect is the proposed charter was a ship wreck which killed nethusiasm. 17:22:30 ChrisL: Yes. 17:22:35 s/wreck/REC? 17:22:58 ship REC or shipwreck? 17:23:10 It is hard to recognize speech / hard to wreck a nice beach 17:23:16 Rossen_: This is one way to put it. THe other way to put it is it wasn't a march to death. It was to scope down and ship a spec that was worked on for 13 years and had no progress untila year or two ago. 17:23:38 Rossen_: Prop was centered on keeping that focus and shipping the spec and chipping things away to other groups. 17:24:06 Rossen_: This was just an introduction. I"m sure more discussions will happen. THis was a conversation starter. 17:24:07 When no browser implementers support a WG producing browser technology, the WG must not be created/renewed to avoid the XHTML2 failure mode 17:24:15 Topic: Publish request for CSS Alignment 17:24:20 that's the tl;dr 17:24:38 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Acss-align-3 17:25:04 The spec is longer that css2.1, does not have a test suite, and was chartered to reach REC in Q3 2017. This was a death march, I stand by my words. 17:25:13 fantasai: We can go either way on the open issues. THe last baseline alignment with scroll boxes need mroe thinksing 17:25:19 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/547 17:25:38 q+ 17:25:40 fantasai: We had text in the past and lost it during an edit that said if you apply flex on align prop does it apply to table wrapper box 17:25:49 q? 17:25:52 fantasai: If people are happy we can make changes. 17:26:13 fremy: I'd prefer this in table spec, not align. I'm fine with the idea, but I don't think it goes in here. 17:26:27 fantasai: This would go into align in terms of what the property applies to and also the flex box spec. 17:26:53 fantasai: It's a bigger topic, but the distinction between if things apply to table wrapper box applies across all of css and we should be careful to note it. 17:27:22 fantasai: There should be a systematic way to track that and it should be noted in that property or else we'll forget stuff. 17:27:39 fremy: My opinion is different that we should have a clear rule in the table spec and not decide on each property. 17:28:04 fremy: I think nearly every property in CSS instead of making a list of them, instead create a rule in the table spec. 17:28:36 fantasai: In terms of flex specifically it requires explaining how it applies. flex applies in that the table wrapper box needs to be flexed to match the calc in flex. It's complicated in this case. 17:28:54 fantasai: Since flex is further along and tables is in 2.1 I don't think we should leave it out of flexbox until tables is in CR. 17:29:15 fremy: I'm fine. If we want to resolve and no one objects let's do it. 17:29:31 Rossen_: Going back. My first question is does anyone do anything with tables when they are flex items currently? 17:29:34 fremy: Nope 17:30:03 Rossen_: WE don't. Playing with flexbox I don't believe other impl do. Everyone who has worked on table layout knows how "fun" it is to make changes there. 17:30:26 Rossen_: If this is an incubation question would anyone have interest in impl flex on tables? If yes we can corner the spec somewhere. 17:30:36 Rossen_: Mostly that's to other impl of flexbox. 17:30:38 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#change-2015-anonymous-fixup lost text during a related change, in CR 17:30:58 Rossen_: I don't hear any 17:31:18 fantasai: You don't have the flex impl on the call. This text was in CR. It was lost during a change for anon boxes. 17:31:24 fantasai: It prob shouldn't have been. 17:31:51 fantasai: If we decide down the line we don't want to impl, but it should be in the spec. IT's reasonable to want a flex item that happens to be a table to flex to take up the space and not act fixed. 17:32:01 Rossen_: You want to keep this in flex spec? 17:32:09 fantasai: I want to restore the text. 17:32:21 Rossen_: I think it's fine. We can discuss actual merit later. 17:32:43 Rossen_: Request is restoring the text in flexbox that spec that tables as flex items respect flex. 17:32:57 Rossen_: I encourage those not in favor of the behavior to open an issue. 17:33:11 RESOLVED: Restore the accidently removed text 17:33:23 Rossen_: Next issue is scrollable boxes and last baseline alignment? 17:33:36 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/766 17:33:40 fantasai: CSS align had a sentence that [reads] 17:33:47 q+ 17:33:51 fantasai: CSS2.1 had a different sentence [reads] 17:34:07 s/Restore the accidently removed text/Restore the accidently removed text from css-flexbox specifying how flex applies to table wrapper boxes/ 17:34:20 q? 17:34:29 q- 17:34:32 fantasai: There was an issue raised on 2.1 to make overflow have a less dramatic effect by honoring baseline of actual tex tunless the actual text overflows. 17:34:55 fantasai: I looked at the 3 versions and I wasn't sure if the one we resolved on was right. THe text in CSS Align seemed the most useful. I want to hear other thoughts. 17:35:07 fantasai: We need to move 2.1 into align or vice versa. 17:35:37 myles: As far as I know there aren't any impl that follow this feature of css align so I'd be worried about changing behavior for every impl 17:35:52 myles: Seems that one of the existing behaviors should be reflected rather than making every impl change. 17:35:56 fantasai: Seems reasonable. 17:36:14 Rossen_: I'd be in favor of myles' approach as an impl. 17:36:32 Rossen_: Anyone else? If not we can resolve 17:36:45 myles: One other piece. What is the reason that css align says this? 17:37:38 fantasai: WE had to define diff between how you fine the baseline of the box...when you take the baseline from the text you need a scroll position. THe scroll position for using first baseline is straight forward. Last baseline problem is that you are trying to align to something that is overflowing and that's not useful. 17:38:38 fantasai: For scrollable boxes we defined last baseline you scroll to the final position and take that. When you've scrolled to the bottom you're in alignment. In 2.1 there's no way to align to that. That makes a difference when trying to align to something scrolled all the way to the bottom. THere's no way to get that to baseline align outside that box. 17:39:23 fantasai: If we take CSS Align that you scroll to the final position and then it'll be in view you can use that bottom edge and align that to content. Like if you're making a chat app you would care about that as they scroll upwards and you tend to hang out at the bottom. 17:39:24 correcting minutes from way up: s/The other aspect is the proposed charter was a ship wreck which killed nethusiasm./The other aspect is the proposed charter was a death march to ship REC within a year, which killed enthusiasm for Invited Experts/ 17:39:53 fantasai: I don't think we thought about that when creating 2.1 I think this behavior gives a useful result instead of semi-random result. 17:40:06 myles: Yeah. I'm just worried about every browser breaking web pages. 17:40:18 Rossen_: Anyone else? 17:40:23 tantek, what do you mean? 17:40:33 for breaking every browser - is there a test? 17:41:02 Rossen_: Let's try to resolve. Would that mean we remove this from css align? 17:41:09 just wondering if there is an evidence based way to resolve this issue, instead of "what should happen" vs "worried about every browser breaking web pages" 17:41:10 fantasai: It means it changes its text ot match 2.1 17:41:15 fremy_ has joined #css 17:41:19 fantasai: There's 3 behaviors. 17:41:37 A) (original) if 'overflow' is not visible, use the bottom margin edge, ignoring the contents 17:41:40 fantasai: 1 is the original. If overflow is not visible use bottom monitor edge 17:41:45 myles, if you can produce a test that demonstrates the "every browser breaking web pages" for this change, then I think you'll get more support :) 17:41:55 fantasai: [types them out] 17:41:58 B) use the last baseline, but if overfow is not visible, then clamp that to bottom margin edge 17:42:19 C) if overflow is not visible, scroll to the bottom then use the actual baseline 17:42:43 Rossen_: I would caution here that this may or may not have side effects to intrinsic controls. So an input type text in our impl is a div with an overflow: hidden and we do align baselines of controls with rest of the lines given they're positioned in an inline context. 17:42:47 Note: this is for aligning to the *last* baseline 17:42:59 Rossen_: That definition of being an overflow or not seems a bit too restrictive from that POV 17:43:06 myles: So form controls are inline blocks? 17:43:16 Rossen_: Yes. They can get any type of display. 17:43:34 myles: Which of these are you commenting able? 17:43:43 Rossen_: B 17:43:51 Rossen_: [reads] 17:45:00 http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cp%3E.A%20%3Cselect%20size%3D2%3E%3Coption%3EA%3Coption%3EB%3Coption%3EC%3C%2Fselect%3E 17:45:04 Rossen_: Again, if I re-iterate the input-type: text is overflow:hidden and we can perfectly well align with the baseline inside. Some thing goes with text area. We can align on the line inside a text area. When people create components I would expect the normal pattern to be try and encapsulate them as mucha s possible. If we lose the ability to align with the baseline it would be unfortunate 17:45:32 fantasai: I think what we're ending up on is that A or B would not allow you to create a component that allowed you to align with the last line. Here's a test case with a select box. 17:45:47 For the record, in relation to the earlier SVG discussion, I've checked my ac-forum mails, and I cannot find any announcement of the charter review failing, from plh or anyone. 17:46:10 fantasai: CSS 2.1 with or w/o myles prop says if that's a div you would align to the bottom margin edge, not the text inside. TO align tot he text inside you have to account for it. And the text in the align spec will do that. 17:46:26 myles: IN your form controls if they do overflow do you do the scrolling behavior? 17:46:33 Rossen_: None do. 17:46:50 with margin: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cp%3E.A%20%3Cselect%20size%3D2%20style%3D%22margin%3A%201em%22%3E%3Coption%3EA%3Coption%3EB%3Coption%3EC%3C%2Fselect%3E 17:47:06 Rossen_: I was just using the example of intrinisic controls because it's simple. When we generalize to components I would expect them to be more encapsulated then not. 17:47:36 Rossen_: Even though we have full control behind the scenes for intrinsic, I don't believe we'll have that for components. I want to make sure we're not cornering ourselves for web components 17:47:55 myles: It sounds like if we're going for most encapsulation it should always be the border box and no one wants that. 17:48:00 Rossen_: I agree we don't want that. 17:48:17 myles: Aiming for more encapsulation is not sufficient to guide this decision 17:48:30 Rossen_: It's suffient to exemplify why A and B are less then ideal 17:48:46 fantasai: I'm going to say this needs more discussion and we should think on use cases and comment on the thread 17:48:54 Rossen_: I'm fine with going back to github. 17:49:19 Rossen_: Publication. I don't know if this includes that. 17:49:22 No, just want to update. 17:49:26 Can update more after we resolve this :) 17:49:47 so you're OK if we don't pub now? 17:49:51 [waits for fantasai to type or rejoin] 17:50:13 fantasai: we want to updat ehte spec. WE can update more after issues are resolved. It'll be the first echena update. 17:50:21 ship it! 17:50:21 Rossen_: Obejctection to republishing? 17:50:31 RESOLVED: Republish CSS Align CR. 17:50:40 for a CR republish, do we need a transition call or email? 17:50:42 Rossen_: fantasai please work with the contacts to publish 17:50:52 TOpic: CSS profiles in future snapshots 17:51:25 rrsagent, here 17:51:25 See http://www.w3.org/2017/02/08-css-irc#T17-51-25 17:51:28 Florian: There have been a couple of snapshot issues. One I want to mention is it refers to css profiles even though the docs are abandoned. WHat should we do about the profiles and about the snapshot? 17:51:35 Florian: fantasai pointed out others refer to them 17:52:14 We can OBSOLETE them as of March 1 per the new process! 17:52:20 fantasai: OTher standards org point at these profiles. We froze them as notes and said no futher work. They have not been recinded. THere's no reason to. So I do think they are part of the snapshot because they're work we did here. Unlike other work where we've said we won't continue. 17:52:28 tantek, they're not obsolete. They're just inert. 17:52:32 Florian: Not taking down the profiles, fair enough. 17:52:46 uh, inert sounds like obsolete :P 17:53:06 obsolete is "we don't use this spec anymore, we have a better spec here" 17:53:12 Florian: They are wrong, though. The one about TV says you may support all media types, but you must support all and TV. TV has been depicated so if you support it you'll do something incorrect. We shouldn't point to them because they're wrong. 17:53:59 fantasai: They're still...thought TV is depicated anyone following the standard is going to follow it. THere's depricated technology, but anyone working with those old tech need this. We're not recommending to use them, but we're saying if you need them they're here. 17:54:00 fantasai - no, obsolete is - do not implement. nothing about "better spec here" 17:54:49 Florian: For example, when we depricated we didn't say don't use it, we changed it to does not work. The spec says it much never match anything. THe profile says if you're a TV use that. Pointing to them ourselves seems like it would lead to confusion. From the snapshot it seems odd. 17:54:54 tantek: These aren't TR? 17:54:58 Florian: They're notes 17:55:01 fantasai: That is TR 17:55:04 Florian: TR notes 17:55:10 tantek: Notes makes it less of a big deal. 17:55:23 tantek: If we think they're broken we should mark obsolete. 17:55:35 Florian: I haven't read them all, but I read the beginning of one and found something wrong. 17:55:46 tantek: If they're out of date we should mark as do not impl 17:55:59 smfr has left #css 17:56:08 smfr has joined #css 17:56:11 Rossen_: We can add the red banner. Are all the profiles wrong? Just TV? If we don't know we can go through and decide. Not on a call. 17:56:21 Florian: No one wants to go through. THat's why they're out of date. 17:56:30 Rossen_: One was published on Oct 2014..mobile. 17:56:38 Florian: By that meausre they're all fairly recent. 17:57:05 Rossen_: WE can take the opposite. Let's add the note and if someone who does care they can go and read them and propose changes. 17:57:17 Florian: Yeah. I think we need to phrase carefully, but a warning is appropriate. 17:57:24 Rossen_: Can't we use the regular warning? 17:57:30 Florian: HOw does it read? 17:57:55 Rossen_: [reads] 17:58:00 fantasai: That's not appropraite 17:58:10 fantasai: If you want to mark obsolete you can. 17:58:21 Rossen_: ChrisL? Can motes be obsolete? 17:58:35 ChrisL: Obsolete is about recs. 17:59:01 SteveZ: The obsolete thing is for things the AC has approved. Notes don't require approval. 17:59:27 tantek: He's got a good point. We don't need to follow the full proceedure, we can jsut do a warning 17:59:37 fantasai: "this spec is obsolete and not maintinaed" 18:00:01 Florian: And having in that note a link to the snapshot saying this is a good place to look makes sense to me. Having the snapshot point to them makes little sense 18:00:08 tantek: I'm fine with that proposed note. 18:00:29 lajava has joined #css 18:00:47 Rossen_: let's try and capture this. Objections to adding a warning note to all profile notes (mobile print tv) saying they are obsolete and if people want to see what the WG is doing they can go to the snapshot 18:00:58 RESOLVED: add a warning note to all profile notes (mobile print tv) saying they are obsolete and if people want to see what the WG is doing they can go to the snapshot 18:01:05 ChrisL: Should we point to snapshot or /TR? 18:01:11 fantasai: That is the snapshot 18:01:21 ChrisL: I mean to tr-css which points to snapshots 18:01:23 fine 18:01:23 Rossen_: Sure. 18:01:28 s#TR#TR/CSS# 18:01:39 Rossen_: Do we need to contract anyone else that has a dependency on those notes? 18:02:11 ChrisL: It was external organizations I think. I don't think anyone in AGB did TV. It would surpise me if anyone in TV was paying attention to it. 18:02:30 Florian: The resolution I wanted was to stop linking to them from the snapshot 18:02:33 ChrisL it wouldn't surprise me because Mark of Netflix was complaining about out of date specs on TR just last May 18:02:39 Rossen_: objections? 18:02:41 +1 18:02:44 no objection 18:02:47 and Netflix does have something to do with TV ;) 18:02:50 RESOLVED: Stop linking to obsolete profile notes from the CSS snapshot 18:02:58 Rossen_: Thanks everyone. 18:02:59 bye! 18:03:07 bye! 18:03:18 later, y'all 18:03:20 FYI, the editors of the notes are Tantek, Fantasai and Bert (one note each) (plus more people, but they're not active) 18:03:40 yep - hence I know to mark them as obsolete :) 18:04:08 If it has my name on it, I'll update it. 18:04:18 Bert: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/ 18:04:43 Does Tantek do the TV profile? 18:04:55 did, past tense 18:04:57 (I can do that, too, It'll be the same note anyway) 18:05:02 thank you Bert! 18:06:04 Bert: Will you do the print one as well while you're at it? It says that fantasai is a co-editor, but if you're doing 2 already, doing all of them is probably lower overhead 18:06:49 Yes, let me do all three., if that's OK with fantasai 18:12:32 Bert, please go ahead 18:31:56 stryx` has joined #css 18:55:47 plh has joined #css 18:59:03 plh has joined #css 19:13:49 bradk has joined #css 19:18:59 plh has joined #css 19:22:34 leviw has joined #css 19:23:40 slightlyoff has joined #css 19:24:11 surma has joined #css 19:24:50 stryx` has joined #css 19:25:12 amtiskaw has joined #css 19:25:42 jack has joined #css 19:26:20 esprehn has joined #css 19:26:25 Dongwoo has joined #css 19:27:13 robertknight_clo_ has joined #css 19:29:35 krit has joined #css 19:29:48 plh has joined #css 19:33:46 rbyers has joined #css 19:36:55 iank_ has joined #css 19:56:35 melanierichards has joined #css 19:57:12 BogdanBrinza has joined #css 19:58:04 jcraig has joined #css 20:01:33 gregwhitworth has joined #css 20:01:59 MichielBijl has joined #css 20:02:25 majidvp has joined #css 20:02:25 jcraig_ has joined #css 20:03:58 Zakim has left #css 20:04:26 kochi has joined #css 20:13:58 NavidZ has joined #css 20:16:06 AmeliaBR has joined #css 20:21:50 Florian has joined #css 20:29:59 jcraig has joined #css 20:58:45 jcraig has joined #css 21:25:09 Florian has joined #css 22:14:20 jyasskin has joined #css 22:14:28 JonathanNeal_ has joined #css 22:14:28 RachelNabors has joined #css 22:14:29 ojan has joined #css 22:14:36 TabAtkins has joined #css 22:14:43 stryx` has joined #css 22:25:56 Florian has joined #css 23:26:27 Florian has joined #css 23:26:31 jensimmons has joined #css 23:37:33 stryx` has joined #css